Jump to content

The sad story of Staten Island bus service. How would you cheer the borough up?


JubaionBx12+SBS

Recommended Posts

But one of the problems on Staten Island is the lack of connections to other parts of the region. Sure, you can get to St. George from most neighborhoods in SI, but it's hard to get to Brooklyn and virtually impossible to go to NJ (outside of Bayonne, unless you want to travel via Manhattan or go through Bayonne/Jersey City)

 

What about those that, you know, want better service WITHIN Staten Island? Those that have been, and currently are complaining about crummy service WITHIN Staten Island...... By having buses panning out-of-state all over the place, you're failing to realize that would make overall service WORSE (despite what QJT believes).... you would have longer waits for buses; buses would be even more unreliable.....

 

I mean, isn't that what you'd want to avoid (any further instances of) and actually combat against...... Telling me that the service area of SI's routes is rather limited doesn't mean much of anything when you CURRENTLY, constantly have 15, 20+ min waits/headways on the routes (in general).... Don't hand me snow shovels when it's raining outside....

 

Every route isn't designed to carry heavily.... extending buses does not, and will not necessarily result in a decrease in headways; which is another misconception ppl. have.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What about those that, you know, want service WITHIN Staten Island? Those that are complaining about crummy service WITHIN Staten Island...... By having buses panning out-of-state all over the place, you're failing to realize that would make overall service WORSE (despite what QJT believes)....

 

But the point is that there would still be some short-turns within Staten Island to keep the buses fairly reliable. Think about it: There are 3 route extensions that I suggested myself:

 

1) The S56 to Perth Amboy

 

2) The S98 to Elizabeth

 

3) The S89 to Newark Airport (going across I-78. Bayonne is fairly close to Newark Airport as-the-crow-flies, but it's still not too easy to get there by transit)

 

The S98 one naturally solves itself (the S48 is a backup)

 

The S56 one can be solved with short-turns (if you want to appease the intra-SI riders, you can increase service to every 20 minutes: 40 minutes for the short-turns and 40 minutes for the NJ runs)

 

The S89 already goes to New Jersey, so service within SI isn't an issue (and if Bayonne-SI riders are concerned about reliability, some buses can short-turn from Bayonne-SI)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, there would still be buses traveling within Staten Island to help keep reliability issues from becoming too bad. I mean, what else is there to say: There needs to be better monitoring of the routes, and the routes that would be extended in particular (considering the fact that they aren't too frequent).

 

You still haven't explained why it is so necessary to send so many routes to New Jersey? I mean really, you complain about the buses going to the ferry being f*cked up. Well you wanna know something? You start sending all of these buses to NJ and you'll never make the ferry on time. For one thing, many people don't know that even though the bus doesn't make the ferry all the time, in theory, those buses are still tied to those ferries though. That means for example, that if the ferry comes in late and the dispatcher decides to hold those buses to pick up the load from the ferry, that bus may have to play catch up the whole day going back and forth because the ferry was 20 minutes late.

 

If you take a line like the S48, which already has very tight headways and then make that bus 20 minutes late, it is very easy to see how it could constantly remain late. Send that bus to NJ and you're just asking for an absolute mess. That is exactly why the B/Os on the S48 back in the day would be annoyed because they are held for the boat when they already have tight headways to begin with and they can never get back on time. That's probably one reason why the dispatchers have started cutting back on holding them because I can remember when some buses would leave early and the dispatcher would make them come back all the way to the terminal to pick up the passengers that they left behind, obviously making them late in the process.

 

I mean whether you realize this or not, your attitude seems to be that we MUST increase ridership at all costs. F*ck the fact that it is does nothing to deal with the core at issue at hand which is why service sucks on the local buses in particular, but let's increase ridership. And I know what you're thinking because you already hinted at it. Increase the ridership so that the fares can go down, but that is not happening anytime soon.

 

For lines that have bad ridership, what should be done is to have community meetings to try to see why the routes aren't being used and what riders would like to see or what they tend to use the route for and then make adjustments accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the point is that there would still be some short-turns within Staten Island to keep the buses fairly reliable. Think about it: There are 3 route extensions that I suggested myself:

 

1) The S56 to Perth Amboy

 

2) The S98 to Elizabeth

 

3) The S89 to Newark Airport (going across I-78. Bayonne is fairly close to Newark Airport as-the-crow-flies, but it's still not too easy to get there by transit)

 

The S98 one naturally solves itself (the S48 is a backup)

 

The S56 one can be solved with short-turns (if you want to appease the intra-SI riders, you can increase service to every 20 minutes: 40 minutes for the short-turns and 40 minutes for the NJ runs)

 

The S89 already goes to New Jersey, so service within SI isn't an issue (and if Bayonne-SI riders are concerned about reliability, some buses can short-turn from Bayonne-SI)

 

Nah bro, you don't short turn buses for the purpose of keeping service "in house"; that's a weak argument.... you short turn buses to a] cut costs.... but more related to this thread, b] curtail service where the majority of riders are traveling between..... The main point of sending buses to NJ is to increase ridership - short turning buses minimizes the amt. of pax you'd hope to achieve to get as much of a boost in ridership that much further....

 

I mean really, you & QJT are acting like there's this grandiose amt. of latent ridership; a whole wad of riders that are just bursting at the seams waiting to embark on intrastate local buses.... Hate to burst your bubbles, but NJ is not THAT big of a draw to Staten Islanders..... especially the part that SI is situated around....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the point is that there would still be some short-turns within Staten Island to keep the buses fairly reliable. Think about it: There are 3 route extensions that I suggested myself:

 

1) The S56 to Perth Amboy

 

2) The S98 to Elizabeth

 

3) The S89 to Newark Airport (going across I-78. Bayonne is fairly close to Newark Airport as-the-crow-flies, but it's still not too easy to get there by transit)

 

The S98 one naturally solves itself (the S48 is a backup)The S56 one can be solved with short-turns (if you want to appease the intra-SI riders, you can increase service to every 20 minutes: 40 minutes for the short-turns and 40 minutes for the NJ runs)

 

The S89 already goes to New Jersey, so service within SI isn't an issue (and if Bayonne-SI riders are concerned about reliability, some buses can short-turn from Bayonne-SI)

 

 

Are you serious with that statment?? And when there is no S98 because they're all stuck in NJ then what? You'll still have delayed S48s packed beyond recognition because you know there would be more S98s and fewer S48s...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still haven't explained why it is so necessary to send so many routes to New Jersey? I mean really, you complain about the buses going to the ferry being f*cked up. Well you wanna know something? You start sending all of these buses to NJ and you'll never make the ferry on time. For one thing, many people don't know that even though the bus doesn't make the ferry all the time, in theory, those buses are still tied to those ferries though. That means for example, that if the ferry comes in late and the dispatcher decides to hold those buses to pick up the load from the ferry, that bus may have to play catch up the whole day going back and forth because the ferry was 20 minutes late.

 

If you take a line like the S48, which already has very tight headways and then make that bus 20 minutes late, it is very easy to see how it could constantly remain late. Send that bus to NJ and you're just asking for an absolute mess. That is exactly why the B/Os on the S48 back in the day would be annoyed because they are held for the boat when they already have tight headways to begin with and they can never get back on time. That's probably one reason why the dispatchers have started cutting back on holding them because I can remember when some buses would leave early and the dispatcher would make them come back all the way to the terminal to pick up the passengers that they left behind, obviously making them late in the process.

 

I mean whether you realize this or not, your attitude seems to be that we MUST increase ridership at all costs. F*ck the fact that it is does nothing to deal with the core at issue at hand which is why service sucks on the local buses in particular, but let's increase ridership. And I know what you're thinking because you already hinted at it. Increase the ridership so that the fares can go down, but that is not happening anytime soon.

 

For lines that have bad ridership, what should be done is to have community meetings to try to see why the routes aren't being used and what riders would like to see or what they tend to use the route for and then make adjustments accordingly.

 

But how is it "so many routes" if I would really just be content with 1 route on each bridge (the 3 examples I mentioned above)? I mean, the S57 idea sounds good on paper (in the sense that the Bayonne Bridge rarely has any problems, though I don't know how I-78 is), but that's about it.

 

And like I said, the only route that would meet the ferry would be the S98, and it has a built-in backup: The S48.

 

And think about it this way: Aside from the fact that it provides more frequent service down Forest Avenue (how frequent depends on demand and how generous the MTA decides to be) it can actually become a backup itself.

 

Think of it this way: The ferry is late and buses are being held. The dispatcher can send the S98 out (the only people who would miss it would be people who are going from Manhattan to Elizabeth via Staten Island, which would only be cheapskates and busfans) and hold the S48. The S48 gets crowded with the ferry riders (but that would've happened anyway), and the S98 picks up riders along Forest Avenue, but at least they aren't packing onto the S48.

 

As far as low ridership routes go, we all know why the ridership is low: They are in car-oriented areas and can't compete with car travel in any way. Think about it: If you have a car and drive to St. George, you have to pay $8 to park in the lot. You would be willing to take a bus that takes a bit longer to save the money (especially if you need a transfer at the other end). Think of the areas on the S54, S55, S56, and S57: For the most part, they have ample parking, and nobody in their right mind would wait 30 minutes (and pay $2.25 to boot) when they can drive whenever they want.

 

Are you serious with that statment?? And when there is no S98 because they're all stuck in NJ then what? You'll still have delayed S48s packed beyond recognition because you know there would be more S98s and fewer S48s...

 

I didn't see this post at first.

 

In any case, like I said, the S48 would've ended up being delayed anyway under the current situation.

 

Nah bro, you don't short turn buses for the purpose of keeping service "in house"; that's a weak argument.... you short turn buses to a] cut costs.... but more related to this thread, b] curtail service where the majority of riders are traveling between..... The main point of sending buses to NJ is to increase ridership - short turning buses minimizes the amt. of pax you'd hope to achieve to get as much of a boost in ridership that much further....

 

I mean really, you & QJT are acting like there's this grandiose amt. of latent ridership; a whole wad of riders that are just bursting at the seams waiting to embark on intrastate local buses.... Hate to burst your bubbles, but NJ is not THAT big of a draw to Staten Islanders..... especially the part that SI is situated around....

 

But we're not talking about a bus every 5 minutes. We're just talking about providing some sort of basic coverage between NJ and SI (or at least I am. I don't know how much latent ridership QJT is predicting).

 

I mean, once an SI-er gets into NJ, they have a wide range of choices of places they can go. They can take the train to areas like New Brunswick and Newark which offer employment opportunities, and of course take the buses/trains to other areas.

 

I remember going to Six Flags and taking the S89->HBLR->PATH->308. That trip wasn't bad, but it would've been easier going through Elizabeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still bothered at the fact that the thought process in here so far seems to be:

 

better service for Staten Island's routes = having buses leave Staten Island.

 

that's why I'm not sayin much of anything here, and I notice via's been somewhat quiet before that rant of his too (esp. in a SI thread).... gettin too carried away w/ all this New Jersey talk.....

 

It's good that you want to expand the network, but you have to worry about actual service (not just the service area) within the borough first..... then & only then can you start talking about local service out to some newark airport, or elizabeth, or cheesequake rest stop, or perth amboy, or wherever else in NJ that was mentioned......

 

The extensions are a nice idea and if created in moderation will probably bring ridership up a fair amount, but I said earlier (and still stand by this) that the first step to fixing SI bus service is overhauling the schedules so that they correspond better with actual road conditions (allow more time where necessary if buses can't keep up with the schedule, tighten up schedules that require excessively slow driving, add a bit of fluff on trips departing from St. George so that buses can be held 3-5 mins for the ferry without it making them late), adding buses where necessary to keep headways, and adding a couple of trips here and there as a buffer against reliability issues that may have slipped through the cracks.

 

As to the part in red, there is some truth to that. SI is by far the most predominantly residential of the boroughs (excepting parts of eastern Queens and maybe the northeast Bronx), which means that it becomes more difficult to create intra-SI local routes that will attract ridership. If you look at more successful routes in other boroughs, such as your home route, you have a multitude of subway connections as well as schools, hospitals, retail areas, etc. that generate a fairly significant base ridership in addition to strong peaks during rush. SI doesn't have subways, only the ferry and the Bay Ridge connection, and only a few big ridership generators (CSI, SI Mall, etc.). Lines that spend most of their route in predominantly residential areas with one or two "attractions" on one end or along the way will have very spotty ridership at best, and that seems to describe several of the SI lines.

 

Extensions to Newark/Elizabeth and Perth/South Amboy would work predominantly because they offer alternative connections to Manhattan and parts of Newark (an urban area in its own right) that may actually be more efficient than using the express bus. If you live in the southern half of SI, a 15-25 minute local bus ride followed by a 50-minute rail ride may actually get you into midtown in less time than driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we're not talking about a bus every 5 minutes. We're just talking about providing some sort of basic coverage between NJ and SI (or at least I am. I don't know how much latent ridership QJT is predicting).

 

I mean, once an SI-er gets into NJ, they have a wide range of choices of places they can go. They can take the train to areas like New Brunswick and Newark which offer employment opportunities, and of course take the buses/trains to other areas.

 

I remember going to Six Flags and taking the S89->HBLR->PATH->308. That trip wasn't bad, but it would've been easier going through Elizabeth.

 

The frequency of which you want to send buses out there does nothing to refute my point..... I don't care if it's a bus every hour, you're still not addressing the subpar service within Staten Island with these extensions all over the place....

 

 

 

The extensions are a nice idea and if created in moderation will probably bring ridership up a fair amount, but I said earlier (and still stand by this) that the first step to fixing SI bus service is overhauling the schedules so that they correspond better with actual road conditions (allow more time where necessary if buses can't keep up with the schedule, tighten up schedules that require excessively slow driving, add a bit of fluff on trips departing from St. George so that buses can be held 3-5 mins for the ferry without it making them late), adding buses where necessary to keep headways, and adding a couple of trips here and there as a buffer against reliability issues that may have slipped through the cracks.

 

As to the part in red, there is some truth to that. SI is by far the most predominantly residential of the boroughs (excepting parts of eastern Queens and maybe the northeast Bronx), which means that it becomes more difficult to create intra-SI local routes that will attract ridership. If you look at more successful routes in other boroughs, such as your home route, you have a multitude of subway connections as well as schools, hospitals, retail areas, etc. that generate a fairly significant base ridership in addition to strong peaks during rush. SI doesn't have subways, only the ferry and the Bay Ridge connection, and only a few big ridership generators (CSI, SI Mall, etc.). Lines that spend most of their route in predominantly residential areas with one or two "attractions" on one end or along the way will have very spotty ridership at best, and that seems to describe several of the SI lines.

 

 

1st paragraph is what's being missed by checkmate & QJT.... they are gettin too caught up w/ the extensions themselves.....

 

 

2nd paragraph, you're preaching to the choir with all that about SI being more residential & not having near as much ridership generators as the other boroughs (including subway stations)... and yeah there's some truth to that statement I colorized in red (never implied otherwise)... The problem is, that's being used as the BASIS of how to go about fixing the poor service on SI, which I simply refuse to agree with....

 

In general, ridership is used as a measuring stick as to how many bph should run along a route.... Remember the type of agency we're dealing with here though....

 

However, you ask any rider, and they will tell you that headways dictate ridership.... Sure there's such a thing as overserving customers, but if you give riders piss poor service, they won't consider taking the bus as much.... you start underserving them over time, and you will watch ridership decrease along with it....

 

Let's use my home route as an example....

If the MTA gets stupid enough to have B35's running at 10 min headways during peak hours, ridership will not increase... lol... dollar cab drivers will be happy though !

 

My point is, adding more riders to Staten Island's routes will not enhance overall bus service.... It is not all about boosting ridership.... You can't ignore the intangibles (reliability, timeliness, efficiency, etc), and that's the point I'm tryna get through to Checkmate.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how is it "so many routes" if I would really just be content with 1 route on each bridge (the 3 examples I mentioned above)? I mean, the S57 idea sounds good on paper (in the sense that the Bayonne Bridge rarely has any problems, though I don't know how I-78 is), but that's about it.

 

And like I said, the only route that would meet the ferry would be the S98, and it has a built-in backup: The S48.

 

And think about it this way: Aside from the fact that it provides more frequent service down Forest Avenue (how frequent depends on demand and how generous the MTA decides to be) it can actually become a backup itself.

 

Think of it this way: The ferry is late and buses are being held. The dispatcher can send the S98 out (the only people who would miss it would be people who are going from Manhattan to Elizabeth via Staten Island, which would only be cheapskates and busfans) and hold the S48. The S48 gets crowded with the ferry riders (but that would've happened anyway), and the S98 picks up riders along Forest Avenue, but at least they aren't packing onto the S48.

 

As far as low ridership routes go, we all know why the ridership is low: They are in car-oriented areas and can't compete with car travel in any way. Think about it: If you have a car and drive to St. George, you have to pay $8 to park in the lot. You would be willing to take a bus that takes a bit longer to save the money (especially if you need a transfer at the other end). Think of the areas on the S54, S55, S56, and S57: For the most part, they have ample parking, and nobody in their right mind would wait 30 minutes (and pay $2.25 to boot) when they can drive whenever they want.

 

 

 

I didn't see this post at first.

 

In any case, like I said, the S48 would've ended up being delayed anyway under the current situation.

 

 

The whole point of the thread is to IMPROVE service, specifically improving reliability, not making a sh*t load of extensions!! I think you're being really stubborn here and just trying to push through these ridiculous extensions and trying to dismiss our points by saying that buses would be delayed anyway. The point of the thread was to deal with things like delayed S48s in the first place so that they're NOT delayed, not to make more extensions and make routes more unreliable. I can't make that explanation any more clearer if you're just stuck on extensions and not really improving the current routes AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST. That's the point being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The frequency of which you want to send buses out there does nothing to refute my point..... I don't care if it's a bus every hour, you're still not addressing the subpar service within Staten Island with these extensions all over the place....

 

2) 2nd paragraph, you're preaching to the choir with all that about SI being more residential & not having near as much ridership generators as the other boroughs (including subway stations)... and yeah there's some truth to that statement I colorized in red (never implied otherwise)... The problem is, that's being used as the BASIS of how to go about fixing the poor service on SI, which I simply refuse to agree with....

 

3) In general, ridership is used as a measuring stick as to how many bph should run along a route.... Remember the type of agency we're dealing with here though....

 

4) However, you ask any rider, and they will tell you that headways dictate ridership.... Sure there's such a thing as overserving customers, but if you give riders piss poor service, they won't consider taking the bus as much.... you start underserving them over time, and you will watch ridership decrease along with it....

 

Let's use my home route as an example....

If the MTA gets stupid enough to have B35's running at 10 min headways during peak hours, ridership will not increase... lol... dollar cab drivers will be happy though !

 

1) But that's not the only issue facing SI bus service. Yeah, service within Staten Island isn't good, but another major problem is how hard it is to get off SI.

 

I mean, how would you expand service over the Goethals/Outerbridge? You have to admit that there is at least some demand for such a service.

 

2) We've suggested improvements within Staten Island, like extending the S54 to St. George (or sending the S42 down the S54 route or however you want to look at it)

 

3) And that would be the only way they are realistically going to improve service: By increasing the ridership which would lead to better headways.

 

4) By your logic, the S44 and S59 should be filled with riders in the morning, considering they run every few minutes in the AM rush. Yet each bus has a handful (as in I can pretty much count the riders on one hand) of riders despite the high frequency. The B35 is different from a lot of SI routes in that the demand is already high.

 

The whole point of the thread is to IMPROVE service, specifically improving reliability, not making a sh*t load of extensions!! I think you're being really stubborn here and just trying to push through these ridiculous extensions and trying to dismiss our points by saying that buses would be delayed anyway. The point of the thread was to deal with things like delayed S48s in the first place so that they're NOT delayed, not to make more extensions and make routes more unreliable. I can't make that explanation any more clearer if you're just stuck on extensions and not really improving the current routes AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST. That's the point being made.

 

I wouldn't say those extensions are ridiculous. There is a legitimate need for service to NJ.

 

And the S48 would be crowded with the ferry riders, but in my scenario, at least the S98 would get all of the non-ferry riders, making sure that the S48 doesn't get bogged down any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My look through the 2010 bus ridership totals continues with Staten Island. What I found out about Staten Island bus usage is sad. While the majority of routes in the four other boroughs gather over 10,000 riders on an average weekday, NONE in Staten Island reach that mark. The S53 comes the closest with 9,579 riders per weekday. It would be wrong to cut a bunch of service in Staten Island because of low ridership numbers but something has to be done about these numbers. I would restructure and/or consolidate some routes to make sure that at least a few can gain that 10,000 riders per weekday total which is easily achieved in the other boroughs. How would you start improving Staten Island bus service?

 

For starters, IF I were TPTB who run the (MTA), I'd implement the ideas of posters on this board & make sure they get all the credit & recognition for it. I'd at least experiment & test those posters' ideas & concepts, & as I said above, making sure they get the credit & recognition for it. Plus I'd give other awards to these posters, & others, for contributing & trying to improve the Transit Network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) But that's not the only issue facing SI bus service. Yeah, service within Staten Island isn't good, but another major problem is how hard it is to get off SI.

I mean, how would you expand service over the Goethals/Outerbridge? You have to admit that there is at least some demand for such a service.

 

I don't have a problem admitting it, but I do have a problem going overkill with service. In addition to that, you STILL have not dealt with the delays that these routes would face. You can't really be serious by totally dismissing the problems that were raised and saying that the routes would be delayed anyway. That is completely selfish and does NOT help Staten Islanders overall. Your proposal indirectly tells commuters going to St. George to take a hike because getting to New Jersey (another state) is MORE important than getting to the ferry, so instead of having S98s to improve their commutes, they can just pack on to S48s that make every single stop and they'll get to St. George whenever.

 

 

While I can see one or two routes going to New Jersey, three routes is really overkill.

 

2) We've suggested improvements within Staten Island, like extending the S54 to St. George (or sending the S42 down the S54 route or however you want to look at it)

 

Yeah, and that's all fine and good, but you also have to be able to say how you would handle the flip side of it, which is that the more you extend routes, the more delay-prone they are, and you can't just dismiss it and say "Oh well" when delayed buses are one of the biggest problems on Staten Island in terms of bus service.

 

3) And that would be the only way they are realistically going to improve service: By increasing the ridership which would lead to better headways.

 

I completely disagree with that. NJ Transit runs bare bones service and people still flock to those lines and they do because even though the service isn't frequent in some cases, the buses are reliable. People don't mind dealing with a schedule when the buses are prompt. That's what you refuse to admit or just keep overlooking. You can increase the frequencies all you want, but if those buses are MIA or are late, etc. that is still going to push some people to use other alternatives. They've increased the frequencies on the S48, but I am still hesitant to wait for them because they are still unreliable.

 

4) By your logic, the S44 and S59 should be filled with riders in the morning, considering they run every few minutes in the AM rush. Yet each bus has a handful (as in I can pretty much count the riders on one hand) of riders despite the high frequency. The B35 is different from a lot of SI routes in that the demand is already high.

 

Well that goes to show how the (MTA) runs service along Richmond Avenue. This morning while waiting for an X17J by Richmond and Goethals Rd North, I saw one S59 and then maybe 3 minutes later an S89 comes. I mean really, when you have one bus practically behind another, unless the route is bursting at the seams, there is no way that you're going to have buses full. Even a route like the X1 works that way and you have buses every 5 minutes, but if you have one bus right behind another one, you can expect the next bus to be somewhat empty if the bus in front isn't crowded.

 

 

I wouldn't say those extensions are ridiculous. There is a legitimate need for service to NJ.

 

They are because as I said earlier in this post, you refuse to acknowledge the problems that would result from extending these buses into NJ. There is a need for service to NJ, but you're going overboard. I mean really, three buses to NJ and no remedies as to how you would make service more reliable with these extensions except for "Oh well they'll be delayed anyway"??? Yeah, that is ridiculous.

 

And the S48 would be crowded with the ferry riders, but in my scenario, at least the S98 would get all of the non-ferry riders, making sure that the S48 doesn't get bogged down any further.

 

Well that's a grand idea and you don't think that S48 riders aren't going to be pissed?? Do you even know how long of a commute the S48 can be when it is bogged down? I do. The S98 is supposed to be about a 15 - 20 minute ride from my house to the ferry and taking the S48 can add an additional 20 minutes onto the commute if it is really crowded and has to make a ton of stops, which basically your plan would call for. I can't see how any S48 rider would be thrilled with a 40 minute commute from say Broadway & Forest to St. George, when their commute could be halved with the S98 and that is only getting to the ferry. You're adding almost an hour to folks commutes round trip and you don't see the problem with that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I don't have a problem admitting it, but I do have a problem going overkill with service. In addition to that, you STILL have not dealt with the delays that these routes would face. You can't really be serious by totally dismissing the problems that were raised and saying that the routes would be delayed anyway. That is completely selfish and does NOT help Staten Islanders overall. Your proposal indirectly tells commuters going to St. George to take a hike because getting to New Jersey (another state) is MORE important than getting to the ferry, so instead of having S98s to improve their commutes, they can just pack on to S48s that make every single stop and they'll get to St. George whenever.

 

2) While I can see one or two routes going to New Jersey, three routes is really overkill.

 

3) Yeah, and that's all fine and good, but you also have to be able to say how you would handle the flip side of it, which is that the more you extend routes, the more delay-prone they are, and you can't just dismiss it and say "Oh well" when delayed buses are one of the biggest problems on Staten Island in terms of bus service.

 

4) I completely disagree with that. NJ Transit runs bare bones service and people still flock to those lines and they do because even though the service isn't frequent in some cases, the buses are reliable. People don't mind dealing with a schedule when the buses are prompt. That's what you refuse to admit or just keep overlooking. You can increase the frequencies all you want, but if those buses are MIA or are late, etc. that is still going to push some people to use other alternatives. They've increased the frequencies on the S48, but I am still hesitant to wait for them because they are still unreliable.

 

5) Well that goes to show how the (MTA) runs service along Richmond Avenue. This morning while waiting for an X17J by Richmond and Goethals Rd North, I saw one S59 and then maybe 3 minutes later an S89 comes. I mean really, when you have one bus practically behind another, unless the route is bursting at the seams, there is no way that you're going to have buses full. Even a route like the X1 works that way and you have buses every 5 minutes, but if you have one bus right behind another one, you can expect the next bus to be somewhat empty if the bus in front isn't crowded.

 

6) They are because as I said earlier in this post, you refuse to acknowledge the problems that would result from extending these buses into NJ. There is a need for service to NJ, but you're going overboard. I mean really, three buses to NJ and no remedies as to how you would make service more reliable with these extensions except for "Oh well they'll be delayed anyway"??? Yeah, that is ridiculous.

 

7) Well that's a grand idea and you don't think that S48 riders aren't going to be pissed?? Do you even know how long of a commute the S48 can be when it is bogged down? I do. The S98 is supposed to be about a 15 - 20 minute ride from my house to the ferry and taking the S48 can add an additional 20 minutes onto the commute if it is really crowded and has to make a ton of stops, which basically your plan would call for. I can't see how any S48 rider would be thrilled with a 40 minute commute from say Broadway & Forest to St. George, when their commute could be halfed with the S98 and that is only getting to the ferry. You're adding almost an hour to folks commutes round trip and you don't see the problem with that??

 

1) And you know my issues with overkill service. And like I said, if St. George-bound ridership is that much higher than NJ-bound service, there could be some short-turns within Staten Island, in addition to the NJ buses.

 

2) One route is already going to NJ. This would only add another 2 routes (one over the Goethals and one over the Outerbridge). Those routes and bridges serve different parts of NJ (and SI), so the bus going to Elizabeth from the North Shore doesn't do much good for riders going to Perth Amboy from the South Shore.

 

3) And I keep on suggesting short-turns if intra-SI service is an issue, but nobody seems to listen.

 

4) I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be attracted to a service if it was more frequent. Look at B35's example.

 

5) And now you see why I want some service reduced down Richmond Avenue. I went over to ShopRite today and an S59 came with some standees, and then an S44 came right behind with about 2/3 of a seated load. The extra buses don't do many people any good if they come together like that.

 

6) I still don't see how one route on each bridge is "going overboard".

 

7) Outside of rush hour, the S48 is the only bus that runs along Forest Avenue, so non-peak riders do get better service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, IF I were TPTB who run the (MTA), I'd implement the ideas of posters on this board & make sure they get all the credit & recognition for it. I'd at least experiment & test those posters' ideas & concepts, & as I said above, making sure they get the credit & recognition for it. Plus I'd give other awards to these posters, & others, for contributing & trying to improve the Transit Network.

 

Well, they should be studying it and keeping us updated when we do suggest something. And yeah, money would be nice (Considering the fact that I'm doing what the internal people are doing), but you're right that the least they can do is give some type of award.

 

How so? :confused:

 

And you still keep avoiding our other questions too I see...

 

C'mon, you know my posting habits by now. I wouldn't quote a whole post just to answer one question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) And you know my issues with overkill service. And like I said, if St. George-bound ridership is that much higher than NJ-bound service, there could be some short-turns within Staten Island, in addition to the NJ buses.

 

Well that comment seems totally unnecessary when we already know how many people are served by the Ferry... Just how much additional ridership do you expect to get by having buses extended to New Jersey? While I do admit that there is some demand for service to New Jersey it is certainly not that high that you're going to have folks going crazy to leave their cars on Staten Island instead of driving to New Jersey. The difference between NJ and Manhattan is that driving is the norm in NJ and parking is easy and cheaper to come by, so while I know where you're getting this idea of demand from, the demand for bus service to NJ is different from folks from Staten Island heading to NJ.

 

 

2) One route is already going to NJ. This would only add another 2 routes (one over the Goethals and one over the Outerbridge). Those routes and bridges serve different parts of NJ (and SI), so the bus going to Elizabeth from the North Shore doesn't do much good for riders going to Perth Amboy from the South Shore.

 

But you yourself have said that there is too much S89 service to NJ, so how can you suddenly suggest that ridership would be so high to NJ that an additional two lines are needed? That seems rather contradictory to me. :confused:

 

3) And I keep on suggesting short-turns if intra-SI service is an issue, but nobody seems to listen.

 

That's because none of us believe that ridership is going to skyrocket to the point that you're suddenly going to need all of these short-turned buses. We're not talking about the M15 here for Christ Sake. This is still Staten Island, even if it is the S53 that we were talking about.

 

4) I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be attracted to a service if it was more frequent. Look at B35's example.

 

And I'm sure that there are plenty of people who would be turned off to a service that was frequent but unreliable. There is plenty of X5 service, at least on the schedule, but many people ditch the X5 and take the X2 instead because the X5s are always MIA, so that still rebukes your argument. :P

 

5) And now you see why I want some service reduced down Richmond Avenue. I went over to ShopRite today and an S59 came with some standees, and then an S44 came right behind with about 2/3 of a seated load. The extra buses don't do many people any good if they come together like that.

 

I don't think service needs to be reduced. It needs to be better managed. I told you on Monday I saw a crushloaded S44 as I was waiting for car service there at Shop Rite. I waited there for quite a while I don't recall any other bus after that.

 

6) I still don't see how one route on each bridge is "going overboard".

 

I do when there is no justification to explain such service. People are supposed to have better access to NJ when they live in NY. Where is the logic in that?? :confused:

 

7) Outside of rush hour, the S48 is the only bus that runs along Forest Avenue, so non-peak riders do get better service.

 

Yeah, and like I said how?? :confused:

 

Well, they should be studying it and keeping us updated when we do suggest something. And yeah, money would be nice (Considering the fact that I'm doing what the internal people are doing), but you're right that the least they can do is give some type of award.

 

Screw the reward. The reward is the service improvements, not unless the reward is of monetary value. Everytime that I look at that M3 sign at Union Square East, I remember that it was me and my e-mails that got it put there. :cool: And now I dare a B/O on the M3 to go flying past that stop... :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem admitting it, but I do have a problem going overkill with service. In addition to that, you STILL have not dealt with the delays that these routes would face. You can't really be serious by totally dismissing the problems that were raised and saying that the routes would be delayed anyway. That is completely selfish and does NOT help Staten Islanders overall. Your proposal indirectly tells commuters going to St. George to take a hike because getting to New Jersey (another state) is MORE important than getting to the ferry, so instead of having S98s to improve their commutes, they can just pack on to S48s that make every single stop and they'll get to St. George whenever.

 

 

While I can see one or two routes going to New Jersey, three routes is really overkill.

 

 

 

Yeah, and that's all fine and good, but you also have to be able to say how you would handle the flip side of it, which is that the more you extend routes, the more delay-prone they are, and you can't just dismiss it and say "Oh well" when delayed buses are one of the biggest problems on Staten Island in terms of bus service.

 

 

 

I completely disagree with that. NJ Transit runs bare bones service and people still flock to those lines and they do because even though the service isn't frequent in some cases, the buses are reliable. People don't mind dealing with a schedule when the buses are prompt. That's what you refuse to admit or just keep overlooking. You can increase the frequencies all you want, but if those buses are MIA or are late, etc. that is still going to push some people to use other alternatives. They've increased the frequencies on the S48, but I am still hesitant to wait for them because they are still unreliable.

 

 

 

Well that goes to show how the (MTA) runs service along Richmond Avenue. This morning while waiting for an X17J by Richmond and Goethals Rd North, I saw one S59 and then maybe 3 minutes later an S89 comes. I mean really, when you have one bus practically behind another, unless the route is bursting at the seams, there is no way that you're going to have buses full. Even a route like the X1 works that way and you have buses every 5 minutes, but if you have one bus right behind another one, you can expect the next bus to be somewhat empty if the bus in front isn't crowded.

 

 

 

 

They are because as I said earlier in this post, you refuse to acknowledge the problems that would result from extending these buses into NJ. There is a need for service to NJ, but you're going overboard. I mean really, three buses to NJ and no remedies as to how you would make service more reliable with these extensions except for "Oh well they'll be delayed anyway"??? Yeah, that is ridiculous.

 

 

 

Well that's a grand idea and you don't think that S48 riders aren't going to be pissed?? Do you even know how long of a commute the S48 can be when it is bogged down? I do. The S98 is supposed to be about a 15 - 20 minute ride from my house to the ferry and taking the S48 can add an additional 20 minutes onto the commute if it is really crowded and has to make a ton of stops, which basically your plan would call for. I can't see how any S48 rider would be thrilled with a 40 minute commute from say Broadway & Forest to St. George, when their commute could be halfed with the S98 and that is only getting to the ferry. You're adding almost an hour to folks commutes round trip and you don't see the problem with that??

clearly you weren't listening. I said the routes heading to NJ will have rush hour short trips that won't have the problems of going to NJ cause they stay within SI!!!!!!! Plus most of those highways are very fast. S55/56 need those parts badly. S54/57 will be forced to improve it's service due to increased demand. I believe NO BUS THAT serves st george should be allowed into NJ. That is indirect competition and those lines are tied to the ferry and can't afford to take risks!!!!! Only non ferry bound buses can go to NJ hence why I selected S54-57 only. If a BK coney island st george line is made then S76 will be in danger of losing st george.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Well that comment seems totally unnecessary when we already know how many people are served by the Ferry... Just how much additional ridership do you expect to get by having buses extended to New Jersey? While I do admit that there is some demand for service to New Jersey it is certainly not that high that you're going to have folks going crazy to leave their cars on Staten Island instead of driving to New Jersey. The difference between NJ and Manhattan is that driving is the norm in NJ and parking is easy and cheaper to come by, so while I know where you're getting this idea of demand from, the demand for bus service to NJ is different from folks from Staten Island heading to NJ.

 

2) But you yourself have said that there is too much S89 service to NJ, so how can you suddenly suggest that ridership would be so high to NJ that an additional two lines are needed? That seems rather contradictory to me. :confused:

 

3) That's because none of us believe that ridership is going to skyrocket to the point that you're suddenly going to need all of these short-turned buses. We're not talking about the M15 here for Christ Sake. This is still Staten Island, even if it is the S53 that we were talking about.

 

4) And I'm sure that there are plenty of people who would be turned off to a service that was frequent but unreliable. There is plenty of X5 service, at least on the schedule, but many people ditch the X5 and take the X2 instead because the X5s are always MIA, so that still rebukes your argument. :P

 

5) I don't think service needs to be reduced. It needs to be better managed. I told you on Monday I saw a crushloaded S44 as I was waiting for car service there at Shop Rite. I waited there for quite a while I don't recall any other bus after that.

 

6) I do when there is no justification to explain such service. People are supposed to have better access to NJ when they live in NY. Where is the logic in that?? :confused:

 

7) Yeah, and like I said how?? :confused:

 

8) Screw the reward. The reward is the service improvements, not unless the reward is of monetary value. Everytime that I look at that M3 sign at Union Square East, I remember that it was me and my e-mails that got it put there. :cool: And now I dare a B/O on the M3 to go flying past that stop... :mad:

 

1) But that's why I'm not suggesting a ridiculous number of buses crossing the bridge. The frequencies would be, say every 15 minutes for the S98 (30 off-peak), and 30 minutes for the S56 (60 off-peak). I'm projecting additional ridership, but not necessarily enough to cover the extra costs of the service.

 

I mean, think about it: Let's say you're a businessman from the South Shore who has to go to a meeting in the middle of the day. He can either drive to Eltingville and take the X1 or X17 all the way across SI, or you can hop on the S56 and take it to the NJT train. (Let's say that for one reason or another, he doesn't want to drive to Manhattan) It would be a lot easier and faster to make the trip via the latter method.

 

2) The S89 is fairly frequent, and I think that the frequencies should be reduced: Not just for Bayonne riders, but for Richmond Avenue riders. Believe it or not, if you go around 07:00 (before the school rush), you'll find that the S89 has more riders per bus than either the S44 or S59.

 

I mean, ridership over the Bayonne Bridge itself is fairly decent. On average, I would say each bus has a seated load (during the peak-of-the-peak, there are a decent number of standees, but on the shoulders of rush hour, ridership isn't too great)

 

3) Like I said, the short-turned buses would be within SI (SI riders would see more service than SI-NJ riders)

 

4) Ah, but the X2 serves a lot of the same areas as the X5. ;) Sometimes, frequent service doesn't necessarily boost ridership on that route, but on the network overall (because people know they have that route as a backup).

 

Plus, I don't think there are a whole bunch of empty X5s or anything.

 

5) I dunno. During the heart of rush hour, I would say that on average, the buses have a little less than a seated load. I think that's too much service considering the fact that it's rush hour.

 

But I will agree that they should space the buses out a bit more.

 

6) By your logic, why should we have service to Brooklyn when we live in Staten Island? Brooklyn isn't that big of an employment center or anything (not as big as Manhattan at least)

 

7) Right now, service is every 12 minutes. My plan would cut back the service to every 15 minutes on the S48, but would add S98 service every 30 minutes off-peak. That means riders waiting at a limited stop get service every 10 minutes or so.

 

I mean, if ridership does increase, S98 service can be boosted up to every 20 minutes or even every 15 minutes off-peak, which provides even more service to Forest Avenue.

 

8) Well, money's always nice. ;) It would be nice to be able to mention that on a college transcript or something, though.

 

clearly you weren't listening. I said the routes heading to NJ will have rush hour short trips that won't have the problems of going to NJ cause they stay within SI!!!!!!! Plus most of those highways are very fast. S55/56 need those parts badly. S54/57 will be forced to improve it's service due to increased demand. I believe NO BUS THAT serves st george should be allowed into NJ. That is indirect competition and those lines are tied to the ferry and can't afford to take risks!!!!! Only non ferry bound buses can go to NJ hence why I selected S54-57 only. If a BK coney island st george line is made then S76 will be in danger of losing st george.

 

Nobody from NJ is going to travel to St. George to reach Manhattan, so there's no "competition". Taking the #62 bus to the PATH costs $108 per month, whereas taking the S98 to St. George is about $90 per month. Considering how much more reliable the #62->PATH is (and it's probably faster, even if everything works out on the S98), there's no competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clearly you weren't listening. I said the routes heading to NJ will have rush hour short trips that won't have the problems of going to NJ cause they stay within SI!!!!!!! Plus most of those highways are very fast. S55/56 need those parts badly. S54/57 will be forced to improve it's service due to increased demand. I believe NO BUS THAT serves st george should be allowed into NJ. That is indirect competition and those lines are tied to the ferry and can't afford to take risks!!!!! Only non ferry bound buses can go to NJ hence why I selected S54-57 only. If a BK coney island st george line is made then S76 will be in danger of losing st george.

 

 

Clearly you aren't because I wasn't talking to you. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) But that's why I'm not suggesting a ridiculous number of buses crossing the bridge. The frequencies would be, say every 15 minutes for the S98 (30 off-peak), and 30 minutes for the S56 (60 off-peak). I'm projecting additional ridership, but not necessarily enough to cover the extra costs of the service.

 

I mean, think about it: Let's say you're a businessman from the South Shore who has to go to a meeting in the middle of the day. He can either drive to Eltingville and take the X1 or X17 all the way across SI, or you can hop on the S56 and take it to the NJT train. (Let's say that for one reason or another, he doesn't want to drive to Manhattan) It would be a lot easier and faster to make the trip via the latter method.

 

 

Even so, you have yet to discuss how you would deal with the delays, and short-turning buses doesn't address those buses that would be stuck in New Jersey. The express buses get stuck, but they often don't have to do additional runs after that. It's not the same with local buses though. A businessman from the South Shore is not going to take a bus when he has to be somewhere on time, especially not to New Jersey where parking is plenty and it is faster to drive than to use mass transit.

 

2) The S89 is fairly frequent, and I think that the frequencies should be reduced: Not just for Bayonne riders, but for Richmond Avenue riders. Believe it or not, if you go around 07:00 (before the school rush), you'll find that the S89 has more riders per bus than either the S44 or S59.

 

Okay, but that doesn't answer my original question. How can you suddenly suggest that ridership would be so high to NJ that an additional two lines are needed when you're saying that S89 service should be cut back? :confused:

 

3) Like I said, the short-turned buses would be within SI (SI riders would see more service than SI-NJ riders)

 

And what's the point? Where is all of this ridership coming from that you're going to have all of these short-turned buses? :confused:

 

4) Ah, but the X2 serves a lot of the same areas as the X5. :P Sometimes, frequent service doesn't necessarily boost ridership on that route, but on the network overall (because people know they have that route as a backup).

 

Plus, I don't think there are a whole bunch of empty X5s or anything.

 

That's not the point. If X5 riders thought that the X2 was more convenient then they would be regular X2 riders and not X5 riders. They only take the X2 because they have no choice since there are no X5s.

 

And what does empty X5s have to do w/anything?

 

 

5) I dunno. During the heart of rush hour, I would say that on average, the buses have a little less than a seated load. I think that's too much service considering the fact that it's rush hour.

 

But I will agree that they should space the buses out a bit more.

 

The (MTA) is generally not that generous with service that they're giving so much service to Richmond Ave just because.

 

6) By your logic, why should we have service to Brooklyn when we live in Staten Island? Brooklyn isn't that big of an employment center or anything (not as big as Manhattan at least)

 

Oh please, don't even try it. You know why we have service to Brooklyn and that service stops right at a subway, something we don't have on Staten Island, which works to our benefit. Your proposals give unnecessaery amounts of service to NJ when Staten Islanders will not be using bus service in that capacity and leave people on Staten Island more delayed and with even more unreliable service. I see nothing beneficiary about that at all.

 

7) Right now, service is every 12 minutes. My plan would cut back the service to every 15 minutes on the S48, but would add S98 service every 30 minutes off-peak. That means riders waiting at a limited stop get service every 10 minutes or so.

 

I mean, if ridership does increase, S98 service can be boosted up to every 20 minutes or even every 15 minutes off-peak, which provides even more service to Forest Avenue.

 

Well in theory they're supposed to, but that's not possible if you've got delayed S98s in NJ, which you repeatedly keep ignorning. I use these bridges daily and I know how delay prone they are, but you continue to not want to admit that nor suggest a solution that help ensure that these buses could remain on time.

 

8) Well, money's always nice. ;) It would be nice to be able to mention that on a college transcript or something, though.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

Nobody from NJ is going to travel to St. George to reach Manhattan, so there's no "competition". Taking the #62 bus to the PATH costs $108 per month, whereas taking the S98 to St. George is about $90 per month. Considering how much more reliable the #62->PATH is (and it's probably faster, even if everything works out on the S98), there's no competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Even so, you have yet to discuss how you would deal with the delays, and short-turning buses doesn't address those buses that would be stuck in New Jersey. The express buses get stuck, but they often don't have to do additional runs after that. It's not the same with local buses though. A businessman from the South Shore is not going to take a bus when he has to be somewhere on time, especially not to New Jersey where parking is plenty and it is faster to drive than to use mass transit.

 

2) Okay, but that doesn't answer my original question. How can you suddenly suggest that ridership would be so high to NJ that an additional two lines are needed when you're saying that S89 service should be cut back? :confused:

 

3) And what's the point? Where is all of this ridership coming from that you're going to have all of these short-turned buses? :confused:

 

4) That's not the point. If X5 riders thought that the X2 was more convenient then they would be regular X2 riders and not X5 riders. They only take the X2 because they have no choice since there are no X5s.

 

And what does empty X5s have to do w/anything?

 

5) The (MTA) is generally not that generous with service that they're giving so much service to Richmond Ave just because.

 

6) Oh please, don't even try it. You know why we have service to Brooklyn and that service stops right at a subway, something we don't have on Staten Island, which works to our benefit. Your proposals give unnecessaery amounts of service to NJ when Staten Islanders will not be using bus service in that capacity and leave people on Staten Island more delayed and with even more unreliable service. I see nothing beneficiary about that at all.

 

7) Well in theory they're supposed to, but that's not possible if you've got delayed S98s in NJ, which you repeatedly keep ignorning. I use these bridges daily and I know how delay prone they are, but you continue to not want to admit that nor suggest a solution that help ensure that these buses could remain on time.

 

 

1) The businessman would be using the bus to reach the train to Manhattan. If he were going to New Jersey, then yeah, he'd probably just drive there.

 

And the point of the short-turns would be as insurance against traffic in NJ. If the S56 ran say every 40 minutes to NJ and every 40 minutes within SI, you'd be pretty much guaranteed a bus every 40 minutes (because it is within SI), and then another bus whenever it can show up (hopefully, directly in between the short-turns).

 

2) The point of the lines isn't to really provide ridership. It's to provide coverage. The MTA knew that a route along Woodrow Road (the S56) wouldn't get high ridership, but it knew that there was a need for basic coverage there. The same principle applies.

 

But in any case, like I said, at the height of rush hour, the S89 can get pretty full over the Bayonne Bridge.

 

3) See #1.

 

4) This argument went against what my beliefs are (ridership causes high frequencies, not so much the other way around), but the lack of empty X5s shows that the apparent frequencies are doing something to attract the ridership.

 

5) Well then Richmond Avenue is the exception. I think that if service ran, say every 12-15 minutes (like it does on Forest Avenue), buses wouldn't be unreasonably crowded.

 

6) But if total service over the Verrazanno is every 2-3 minutes at the height of rush hour (and is pretty much warranted), don't you think that service every 15-40 minutes over the Goethals/Outerbridge is warranted? The S53/79/93 provide connections so riders can reach many points in Brooklyn. Don't you think that the connections offered in NJ would attract some sort of ridership?

 

7) But even if the S98 shows up late, it's still helping out along Forest Avenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) The point of the lines isn't to really provide ridership. It's to provide coverage. The MTA knew that a route along Woodrow Road (the S56) wouldn't get high ridership, but it knew that there was a need for basic coverage there. The same principle applies.

 

Then you don't need 3 routes going to NJ if that's the case, and regardless if buses are stuck in traffic then that's not exactly "network coverage".

 

 

4) This argument went against what my beliefs are (ridership causes high frequencies, not so much the other way around), but the lack of empty X5s shows that the apparent frequencies are doing something to attract the ridership.

 

Uh actually there are plenty of empty X5s because they run in packs.

 

5) Well then Richmond Avenue is the exception. I think that if service ran, say every 12-15 minutes (like it does on Forest Avenue), buses wouldn't be unreasonably crowded.

 

Yeah, well we know what your idea of reasonably crowded is.... :eek: lol

 

6) But if total service over the Verrazanno is every 2-3 minutes at the height of rush hour (and is pretty much warranted), don't you think that service every 15-40 minutes over the Goethals/Outerbridge is warranted? The S53/79/93 provide connections so riders can reach many points in Brooklyn. Don't you think that the connections offered in NJ would attract some sort of ridership?

 

Brooklyn and Manhattan share far more in common in that they are more transit centric than they are car centric and that's what you're forgetting. NJ meanwhile is far more car centric and less so transit centric. The only ridership that I see NJ attracting is folks who want to go to NJ and can't afford to drive or don't have a car, or can't afford car service and I just don't see the ridership there to support local buses going there like that from Staten Island. Parking is far easier in NJ and it is quicker to drive than to use mass transit there or to get there.

 

7) But even if the S98 shows up late, it's still helping out along Forest Avenue.

 

 

I don't see how, esp. if it is constantly MIA or late. By the time it shows up the S48s will be packed and people will be late. All it would be doing is picking up folks that couldn't fit on the S48, but wouldn't really be serving as a route that is supposed to cut down commuters' travel times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) But that's not the only issue facing SI bus service. Yeah, service within Staten Island isn't good, but another major problem is how hard it is to get off SI.

 

I mean, how would you expand service over the Goethals/Outerbridge? You have to admit that there is at least some demand for such a service.

 

2) We've suggested improvements within Staten Island, like extending the S54 to St. George (or sending the S42 down the S54 route or however you want to look at it)

 

3) And that would be the only way they are realistically going to improve service: By increasing the ridership which would lead to better headways.

 

4) By your logic, the S44 and S59 should be filled with riders in the morning, considering they run every few minutes in the AM rush. Yet each bus has a handful (as in I can pretty much count the riders on one hand) of riders despite the high frequency. The B35 is different from a lot of SI routes in that the demand is already high.

 

1 & 2) I'm not questioning demand... and quite frankly, I'm not addressing each, or any of those actual route suggestions.... in regards to the thread, physical route manipulations are secondary

 

What I am sayin, for like the umpteenth time is..... The poor local service within Staten Island is far more important an issue than the (not as extensive) service area of SI's local bus network.... If you deny that, especially as a Staten Islander yourself, I gotta pull out the BS card on you...

 

lol @ that's not the only issue facing SI bus service.... Don't sit there & honestly tell me you'd rather have buses goin to NJ, over more reliable bus service w/i the borough.....

 

Furthermore, It aint that damn hard to get off staten island; you act like it's damn near impossible... like extending buses across state lines is gonna make ppl's commutes SO much easier.....

 

Feel free to keep pushing extensions though.... it's not gonna make them anymore important... don't have to take my word for it, just post this thread on a site like SIlive or something, or go to one of those hearings or w/e talkin about:

 

*I have an idea to improve bus service - send the ___, the ____, and the ____ to New Jersey !!!*

 

...and watch the scowls you'll end up gettin from your fellow SI peers.... Because it really does sound that damn stupid.

 

 

3) No it is not the only realistic way.... Utterly ridiculous for you to even say that....

 

You can improve service on a route by adjusting the schedule & headways WITHOUT even having to touch where the routes go.... and again, increases in ridership does not automatically equal higher headways.... the change in ridership would have to be almost exponential to even consider a headway decrease out in SI.... This is how I can tell you think there's a grandiose amt. of riders that would end up embarking on intrastate locals.....

 

funny thing is.... earlier, you just sat there & made the point to me about short turning buses to keep some buses running within Staten Island.... Can't have it both ways... They're not gonna decrease headways on a route just because SOME buses would end up going to NJ....

 

I'm beginning to think extending a route is the only way YOU (and QJT) think service would improve on Staten Island !

 

 

4) Yeah, but you're bringing up a corridor that has TWO (three if you count the 89) routes running along it - of course each bus on each route aren't gonna be high.... of course you're gonna attempt to look for exceptions b/c you know how ridiculous you're sounding in this discussion so far.... Indicative of someone who knows their argument isn't "sound" enough to stand on its own merit......

 

Bringing up that example is like askin me, why are there 2 routes on richmond av like that, if the ridership isn't bursting at the seams along richmond.... which is a whole 'nother issue entirely.....

 

....and you know full well I wasn't comparing the B35 to any Staten Island route....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 & 2) I'm not questioning demand... and quite frankly, I'm not addressing each, or any of those actual route suggestions.... in regards to the thread, physical route manipulations are secondary

 

What I am sayin, for like the umpteenth time is..... The poor local service within Staten Island is far more important an issue than the (not as extensive) service area of SI's local bus network.... If you deny that, especially as a Staten Islander yourself, I gotta pull out the BS card on you...

 

lol @ that's not the only issue facing SI bus service.... Don't sit there & honestly tell me you'd rather have buses goin to NJ, over more reliable bus service w/i the borough.....

 

Furthermore, It aint that damn hard to get off staten island; you act like it's damn near impossible... like extending buses across state lines is gonna make ppl's commutes SO much easier.....

 

Feel free to keep pushing extensions though.... it's not gonna make them anymore important... don't have to take my word for it, just post this thread on a site like SIlive or something, or go to one of those hearings or w/e talkin about:

 

*I have an idea to improve bus service - send the ___, the ____, and the ____ to New Jersey !!!*

 

...and watch the scowls you'll end up gettin from your fellow SI peers.... Because it really does sound that damn stupid.

 

 

3) No it is not the only realistic way.... Utterly ridiculous for you to even say that....

 

You can improve service on a route by adjusting the schedule & headways WITHOUT even having to touch where the routes go.... and again, increases in ridership does not automatically equal higher headways.... the change in ridership would have to be almost exponential to even consider a headway decrease out in SI.... This is how I can tell you think there's a grandiose amt. of riders that would end up embarking on intrastate locals.....

 

funny thing is.... earlier, you just sat there & made the point to me about short turning buses to keep some buses running within Staten Island.... Can't have it both ways... They're not gonna decrease headways on a route just because SOME buses would end up going to NJ....

 

I'm beginning to think extending a route is the only way YOU (and QJT) think service would improve on Staten Island !

 

 

4) Yeah, but you're bringing up a corridor that has TWO (three if you count the 89) routes running along it - of course each bus on each route aren't gonna be high.... of course you're gonna attempt to look for exceptions b/c you know how ridiculous you're sounding in this discussion so far.... Indicative of someone who knows their argument isn't "sound" enough to stand on its own merit......

 

Bringing up that example is like askin me, why are there 2 routes on richmond av like that, if the ridership isn't bursting at the seams along richmond.... which is a whole 'nother issue entirely.....

 

....and you know full well I wasn't comparing the B35 to any Staten Island route....

 

err NO I never said it's the ONLY way to improve service in SI but it is one way that forces headways to improve. The rest is schedule changes and better monitoring of bus routes. The rerouting of X17 will decrease travel time to manhattan while yeilding more ridership which means more service to help X10 and X1. Plus the NJ extensions only apply to S54-57. Along with other improvements. NJ service is just part of the puzzle that would force MTA to relook SI service which will lead to steps to improve SI service in general. Plus the extensions are aimed at getting ppl out of their cars rather than existing commuters who use service within SI to brooklyn and manhattan. Remember there is no NJ bound service to central NJ or major transfer points in NJ. So these extensions have nothing to do with current riders that point I agree with. But the NJ lines would put strain on other routes which will lead to action to help make buses more reliable. Once reliability issues are resolved then NJ bound service is the next step. The effect = more ppl using NJT buses from the transfer points thanks to SI S54-57 connecting SI with NJ. For NJ based problems I have another plan just for that. But unlike my SI ideas it's not as extension heavy more like merger style rather than outright extension. NJ extension alone won't decrease headyways the extra ridership generated from NJ will eventually force the route's headways to decrease resulting in more frequent service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I've caught up w/ the rest of the discussion.....

You're flip flopping here, CheckmateChamp.....

 

The point of the extensions is to increase ridership, which will hopefully lead to more service being added to meet demand.

^^ which was in response to via's concern/question:

I just don't see how sending a bunch of routes to NJ is supposed to improve reliability and why is there this obsession with increasing ridership by forcing them to go to NJ?? The whole point of the thread was to discuss how bus service could be improved. That doesn't mean that we need to send routes to NJ. It means discussing ways in actually improving the current service we already have FIRST

 

 

The point of the lines isn't to really provide ridership. It's to provide coverage. The MTA knew that a route along Woodrow Road (the S56) wouldn't get high ridership, but it knew that there was a need for basic coverage there. The same principle applies.

 

^^ which was in response to via's question:

How can you suddenly suggest that ridership would be so high to NJ that an additional two lines are needed when you're saying that S89 service should be cut back?

==============

 

 

 

....and don't rely on semantics to refute what I just brought up either :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.